Bush is forever going to be in conversations about Grant and Harding and Bush and a couple of others in which everybody tries to make the case as to which is the biggest DISASTER as President.
It just isn't possible at this time to competently make such a statement. Not even remotely possible.
Suppose, for example, that 10 years from now, it becomes known that the actions of Bush were directly responsible for stopping the detonation of a nuke in NYC? Suppose, that 30 years from now, we're out of Iraq and it has become a reasonable facsimile of a democracy, and as a result, the people of Iran become fed up enough to act, thereby creating a more reasonable environment? Would you still consider Bush's actions a failure? You might, but I don't think the majority would.
Suppose, for example, God forbid, there is another, bigger terrorist attack, a year after Obama is elected. Do you think history will not remember that they were kept safe under Bush and Obama "dropped the ball"? It absolutely will.
None of these things may happen. But the point is, the history of a presidential era simply cannot be known until many years have elapsed. Particularly in this instance, where the outcome of the war -- which will undoubtedly determine his legacy -- will not be known for many years. |
